The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."

Sunday, July 26, 2015

David Brock is a partisan. It is not surprising that he is unhappy with
some of our aggressive coverage of important political figures. We are
proud of that coverage and obviously disagree with his opinion.

Since Hillary is the all but inevitable Democratic nominee,
confronting two minor white male candidates, demanding they “say her
name” and come up with solutions that address white supremacy,
structural racism and the runaway police state is pretty much a
foolproof strategy to get noticed, and as Hillary did not attend
NetRoots, they got to do it without antagonizing the Clinton camp.
Hillary wisely covered her own ass by releasing a tweet that
unequivocally said “black lives DO matter.”But all in all, the NetRootsNation confrontation wasn't the stirring
of black women activists “taking their rightful place at the front of
the progressive movement,” as one breathless tweet called it. It didn't
tell us anything we didn't know about O'Malley or Sanders, or about
hypocritical Hillary.

It was about flying the #BlackLivesMatter flag to jockey for
positions inside the machinery that is the Democratic party and its
affiliates.

While the White House has okay-ed the Turkish government's decision to bomb northern Iraq -- allegedly to root out the PKK -- this decision is idiotic and will cause tremendous damage.

In Iraq, specifically, it will enrage Kurds as innocent civilians in their region are killed and it will enrage all Iraqis -- as it did before -- that the Turkish government is dropping bombs on their country.

This does nothing to address the threat of the Islamic State but does everything to further destabilize Iraq.

How bad is it?

Cockburn offers:

The result is that the US may find it has helped to destabilise Turkey
by involving it in the war in both Iraq and Syria, yet without coming
much closer to defeating Isis in either country. If so, America will
have committed its biggest mistake in the Middle East since it invaded
Iraq in 2003, believing it could overthrow Saddam Hussein and replace
him with a pro-American government.

And last week, more cancellations were announced: Ed Schultz lost his show, Alex Wagner lost her show and The Cycle is no more.

This followed earlier cancellations this year of Joy Reid and Ronan Farrow's programs.

In fact, there's a long, long list of MSNBC departures and cancellations over the last few years including Contessa Brewer, Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin, Cenk Uygur and, most infamously, Keith Olbermann.

Two things specifically do not speak well for MSNBC today.

First, the trickle of cancellations.

Nothing is working.

Revamp or die.

The cable chat network is said to be moving back towards news.

That would be a huge improvement.

But they can't do that with the current evening programs.

Rachel Maddow is not a hit.

She is not a success.

What is she?

7th Heaven in season nine.

The ratings are sliding and the best days are gone.

Maddow is only a success in a 'by comparison' manner.

Her show, more and more, has become televised radio.

She blathers on endlessly as if she's Rush Limbaugh.

Chris Hayes?

He's an analyst.

He's not a talk show host.

He should be a regular on Morning Joe.

Al Sharpton has no place on the network though he might argue with the disgraced Brian Williams rejoining MSNBC shortly, he has a right to be there.

The reality is that the same NBC News insiders objecting to Brian Williams over the last few years have also objected to activist Sharpton being able to use his talk show to promote various causes he's is involved in.

It's that sort of thing that's really harmed MSNBC.

Cenk could have been a way forward for the network.

He offered a point of view and it was consistent.

If he was opposed to spying on Americans, he was opposed to it regardless of who was in the White House.

But too many MSNBC hosts, not just Al Sharpton, based their right and wrong judgments based upon whether Democrats (specifically Barack Obama) were supporting something or not.

On something as basic as TPP, the hideous trade pact, Rachel Maddow, for example, was against it repeatedly until it was hailed as a victory for Barack at which point she was slobbering over the deal as something wonderful and amazing.

Viewers noticed this nonsense long ago and have fled.

The second thing that does not speak well for MSNBC is the attempt to return it to the past.

That's bringing Chuck Todd back and, of course, Brian Williams.

But, mainly, it's the rumors that the network is courting Keith Olbermann.

Of the three, Olbermann's return would make the most sense.

We are not now and have never been fans of Keith Olbermann.

But he did deliver ratings and that might happen again.

Or it might not.

Chances are it would be a Here's Lucy type return. It would get ratings but more out of nostalgia than for anything new actually offered.

The main thing though, Olbermann's return would mean Maddow's departure.

Not only would he want his old time slot back, he can't stand Maddow.

This is no longer a private issue.

He made it public.

He considers her a traitor.

He brought her to the network, he supported her and then when MSNBC turned on him/tired of him, he feels Rachel Maddow refused to offer him support.

Having one attempt to toss to the other in prime time would make for tense television.

Again, Olbermann, of all the potential returnees, is the only one that makes business sense and only because he delivered an audience.

That said, does MSNBC have a strategy?

Because election 2016 is not election 2008.

Far too many announced changes and whispered rumors indicate the network is attempting to move -- but backwards, not forward. Nostalgia rarely works when it comes to the ever changing landscape of breaking news.

Cranky Clinton's in trouble for her refusal to use a secure and government e-mail account during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Because there's a recommendation that the Justice Department open an investigation into the issue, her strident followers have taken to attacking The New York Times and promoting Kurt Eichenwald and his critique of the paper.

Upon his return from his book tour for Conspiracy of Fools,
Eichenwald cast about for new story ideas, becoming interested in an
international credit card fraud investigation that led to his becoming involved in the affairs of Justin Berry, a then-18-year-old who was selling pornographic
images and videos of himself both as a minor and as an adult, creating
and selling pornography involving other minors and adults, and engaging
in prostitution. Eichenwald ultimately wrote a series of articles about Berry and his activities; the first appeared in The New York Times
on December 19, 2005. Though the series drew attention to the issues it
raised and won praise from some, it was later revealed that Eichenwald
had made a series of payments to Berry before submitting the story for
publication, a violation of The Times'ethics
policies. Eichenwald made the first payment while representing himself
to be a songwriter and a potential customer for Berry's services, in
order to gain his subject's confidence and discover his true identity,
so that Berry could be located and contacted. His intent being to both
pursue the story, and offer help to Berry. When Eichenwald's initial
$2,000 payment via cashier's check was revealed to editors at The Times
in June 2007, Eichenwald claimed that Berry's family had later repaid
him the full amount, and that the only other payment he had made to
Berry was $10 via PayPal. In August 2007, court documents connected to a
child pornography case brought against a former associate of Berry's
revealed that Eichenwald had made additional payments in June 2005 via
PayPal, totaling at least $1,100; some of those payments were made using
pseudonyms. Eichenwald denied lying about the additional payments,
claiming that he has no recollection of having made them.[4]Eichenwald publicly stated that he, his wife, and his minister were
working together to rescue what they feared was a child in danger, and
that all of the actions they took in June, 2005 were not done in his
role as a journalist. When Berry subsequently decided to become a source
for a story, Eichenwald said he demanded and received repayment of the
money used earlier to avoid a conflict of interest. However, his
recollection of the money he gave Berry omitted a number of payments
later revealed in the various criminal cases against Justin Berry's
business partners and customers, understating the amount paid. Since
this aspect of the story was revealed, many critics have argued that
Eichenwald's actions as a reporter were at least deeply questionable,
and his remedial steps insufficient.

In an October 19, 2007 interview with NPR's David Folkenflik,
Eichenwald stated that, due to the severe backlash from the Justin
Berry story, he felt compelled to disclose that his epilepsy had caused
"severe memory disruptions" and that he had a "deeply unreliable memory
for names, facts and events" which he compensated for by his "famed
meticulous reporting methods." Folkenflik reports that "during the
prosecutions of two of those men [Berry's business partners Greg Mitchel
and Timothy Richards] on related child-pornography charges, revelations
have surfaced that have raised questions about Eichenwald's own
actions. Most notable was his failure to inform editors at the Times
that he and his wife had made a series of payments worth at least $3,100
to Berry and his associates.

So a known liar is now the voice to rally behind?

When you're desperate to shut down a needed investigation, apparently you'll hop into bed with anyone.

As producer Pandro Berman once noted of Hepburn, she couldn't carry a film and was bad in bad films and good in good films.

By contrast, Bette Davis could -- and did -- give a performance even with weak material.

Hepburn is an embarrassment in multiple films.

Here are ten of her worst performances ever.

1) The Iron Petticoat

She's no Greta Garbo and shouldn't have tried to be.

2) The Sea of Grass

So bad MGM delayed releasing it forever. A film that proves Hepburn and Tracy needed strong writing to appear to have chemistry.

3) Dragon Seed

Hepburn couldn't play Russian (see number 1) and she also couldn't play Chinese.

4) Rooster Cogburn

Many actresses had chemistry with John Wayne. Many more, like Joan Crawford, didn't but found a way to make the film amusing. Hepburn just draws attention to herself and her sexless presence.

5) Spitfire

Hepburn was once convinced she could play Booth Tarkington's Cherry. If she had played that role, that might have provided her with the most ridiculous lines of dialogue. Instead, she has this film.

6) Quality Street

Little Women aside, she really couldn't do period dramas.

7) Song Of Love

And was equally lost in bio pics.

8) Suddenly, Last Summer

While Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor turned in fine performances, what the hell was Hepburn doing? She would slam the film (and spit at the producer) but maybe the real problem was her dead acting?

9) Love Affair

She was jealous of other actresses. Over 80 and jealous of other actresses? How sad and it goes a long, long way towards explaining how she ended up with this clenched and embarrassing performance.

10) On Golden Pond

Hepburn is simply ridiculous in this film. Pauline Kael noted in The New Yorker in real that the actress "has become a Kate Hepburn windup doll-chipper and lyrical, floating in
the stratosphere, and, God knows, spunky. Her star turn is a parody of
the great Hepburn performances-it's all pirouettes."

In the US, today could have been a very important day for veterans.
Instead, some members of Congress -- on the Republican side -- elected
to play games and mess with veterans.

Senator Patty Murray has worked years to highlight a very serious
problem for many veterans. You are injured while serving. Your injury
may mean you and your spouse are unable to become pregnant.

Now if you're still active duty, if you're DoD and not under the VA, the
government will cover efforts at in vitro fertilization.

But if you're VA? No.

This isn't fair.

And Murray has led the fight for equality and the fight to see that
veterans have the same rights and opportunities as anyone else.

Today, she pulled her bill because some members of the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee (on the Republican side) attempted to turn a veterans
issue into something else, a vote on Planned Parenthood, abortion and
other issues that had nothing to do with helping wounded veterans start
families.

Murray called the amendments a "partisan attack on women's health,"
and said her bill, which passed the Senate in 2012 but failed in the
House over funding concerns, would have ensured that the nation is doing
"everything we can to support veterans who have sacrificed so much for
our country.""I am so disappointed — and truly angry that
Republicans on the Veterans Affairs Committee decided yesterday to leap
at the opportunity to pander to their base, to poison the well with the
political cable news battle of the day, and turn their backs on wounded
veterans," she said.Tillis said the amendments were not intended
"to kill in vitro fertilization." Rather, he said he has concerns about
veterans who are waiting to receive medical care or are being denied
care, including some of his constituents who have diseases related to
exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, N.C."At some
point, it may make sense to add another half a billion dollars for this
medical treatment that's been proposed by my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, but not until we're absolutely certain that the
promises we've already made going to be fulfilled," said Tillis, a
freshman congressman.

Oh, it's not worth money to help an injured veteran start a family?

The Camp Lejeune issue?

You want to block a nominee over that?

I'll support you, I'll defend you. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, I will support you.

And I have.

I've supported Senator Richard Burr on this issue. I've defended him
here for blocking a nominee or a bill because of this issue.

But I can't support using Camp Lejeune as an excuse for denying other veterans and their families in need.

I can't support.

I can't defend it.

I think it's outrageous and I'm deeply, deeply disappointed in Tillis
who I have had favorable impressions of as a result of recent Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee hearings.

He and others chose to play politics instead of standing up for veterans.

If he can't stand up for veterans, he really doesn't need to be on the Committee.

Today, Evan McMurry demonstrated once again how Mediaite continues to fail at even basic media criticism.

Rushing to hop aboard a non-story, Evan screeched:On Friday, the Times push-alerted its readers that the
Inspector General was opening up a criminal inquiry into whether Clinton
discussed classified information on her private, non-=secure server
while Secretary of State. This would have constituted a major
development in the email story, which until now Clinton had been
weathering, and seriously imperiled the frontrunner’s campaign.

The real 'controversy' regarding the earlier claim is that the original report was based on information officials at the Justice Dept. had provided the paper with.

The real issue?

Mediaite missed it.

As did whores like Bob Somerby (who recently admitted he wasn't a media critic, just a partisan blogger) and Kevin Drum and David Brock.

Criminal investigation or not, Hillary Clinton stands accused of putting national security at risk due to her asinine decision not to use a government e-mail account while she was Secretary of State.

Somehow that basic point is missed as the strident Somerby and others rush to rescue the idiotic Hillary.

That is what she's accused of and her strident little online boyfriends can screech as much as they want but when you're accused of mishandling classified information it goes to whether or not you're fit to be president.

It is a story and the paper and other outlets need to cover it.

But partisan trash will screech and holler in the hopes that they can scare the media off.

That's not about democracy or media criticism -- it's bullying and intimidation on the behalf of their political crush.

“This year, we’ve seen major victories
for the LGBT community, but even as we take strides toward equality, we
must remember that there is more work to do,” said Patty Murray. “There
is no place for discrimination in our country. Yet, far too many LGBT
Americans and women remain vulnerable to discrimination simply because
of who they are or who they love. We need the Equality Act to protect
Americans from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, sex, or
gender identity, regardless of what state they live in. I’m proud to
support this legislation, and I look forward to building on the momentum
we’ve seen recently and deliver on our nation’s promise of equality for
all.”

Despite major advances in equality for
LGBT Americans, including nationwide marriage equality, in the majority
of states, an LGBT couple could be married in the morning and risk being
fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartment in the afternoon.
The Equality Act of 2015 would ensure full federal non-discrimination
equality by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to other
protected classes, such as race or religion, in existing federal laws.

The bill would ban discrimination in a
host of areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations,
jury service, access to credit, and federal funding. The bill would also
add protections against sex discrimination in parts of
anti-discrimination laws where these protections had not been included
previously, including in public accommodations and federal funding.

The legislation was filed simultaneously
in the U.S. House of Representatives by 158 Representatives, led by Rep.
David Cicilline (D-RI).

Go Set A Watchman finds limits to some people's anti-racism

Fifty years after anti-racist classic To Kill A
Mockingbird, Harper Lee’s characters reappear in the unsettling Go Set A
Watchman, writes Sarah Ensor

Harper Lee’s classic novel about
racism in the US South, To Kill A Mockingbird, came out in 1960. Until
last week it was her only published book.
Go Set A Watchman, featuring many of the same characters and some of
the same events, has upset many of her fans. It shows the limits of how
much change they would accept.

Lee originally wrote this novel in 1957. Jean Louise “Scout” Finch returns to her childhood home in Alabama to see her family.

At one point she recalls her lawyer father Atticus successfully
defending a young black man accused of raping a white woman in 1930s
Alabama.

This incident was expanded to become To Kill a Mockingbird after two
years of rewriting. It won the

Pulitzer Prize and is still one of the
most popular books in the US.Angry

Go Set a Watchman’s status as a draft is sometimes obvious. The
writing is initially clunky, but soon becomes funny and charming. Lee
further developed this skill in the later book.

To Kill a Mockingbird is told in Scout’s voice as a child—gently laughing at her family and neighbours.

With their mother dead and their adored father at work, Scout and her
brother Jem were able to run in and out of the houses of the black and
white people they loved.

They heard a lot more than the adults realised and were deeply affected by the racist hatred swirling around them.

As Go Set A Watcheman opens Scout, now known as Jean Louise, is travelling back to Alabama.

She is considering whether to give up her independent life in New
York and marry her old friend Henry, now a lawyer working with her
father.

It seems an unlikely choice—she’s done so much to avoid becoming another middle class housewife.

Then a young black man accidentally kills an old white man. Jean
Louise’s secure view of her father and their relationship begin to
fracture.

Atticus says he will represent the young man—but only to stop the
Civil Rights organisation the NAACP sending lawyers who might stir
people up.

Then at a “citizens’ council” Jean Louise witnesses her father and
Henry calmly listening to the racist bile of a visiting speaker
defending segregation.Understand

It makes her physically sick. She thinks it must be all over with Henry and will never forgive her father.

This is what has shocked so many fans of To Kill a Mockingbird—that
the great defender of equality before the law Atticus Finch could become
a defender of segregation.

It is obviously unfinished and there’s no reason to think that Lee ever meant it to be published. And this is the real pity.

Because we will never know what this could have been if, 50 years
ago, Harper Lee had been prepared to develop the rest as she did the
Mockingbird section. This would have meant exploring the limits of her
characters’ ideas and politics.

Search This Blog

Third Estate Sunday Review

About Me

Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, "Ava" started out this site as five students enrolled in journalism in NY. Now? We're still students. We're in CA. Journalism? The majority scoffs at the notion.
From the start, at the very start, C.I. of The Common Ills has helped with the writing here. C.I.'s part of our core six/gang. (C.I. and Ava write the TV commentaries by themselves.) So that's the six of us. We also credit Dallas as our link locator, soundboard and much more. We try to remember to thank him each week (don't always remember to note it here) but we'll note him in this. So this is a site by the gang/core six: Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. (of The Common Ills).